14/05/2017 Sunday Politics West

It's Sunday morning and this is the Sunday Politics.

Theresa May unveils plans to build many more affordable homes

in England, but with no price tag, timetable or building targets -

Labour takes aim at the City with what it calls a Robin Hood Tax

to fund public services, but will traders just

Don't look at the polls - Jeremy Corbyn, at least,

insists he can win this election - so which way will

and here, what the parties are saying about tackling the air

pollution problem in London. And with me, our own scientifically

selected focus group of political pundits -

they're not so much undecided as clueless -

Tom Newton Dunn, Isabel Oakeshott They'll be tweeting

throughout the programme. So, we've got two new

policies this morning. Labour say they will introduce

a financial transaction tax if they win the general election

and what they're calling "the biggest crackdown on tax

avoidance in the country's history". The Conservatives say they'll work

with local authorities in England to build council houses

with the right to buy. Theresa May says the policy

"will help thousands of people get on the first rung

of the housing ladder". Steve, what do you make of them? I

have been conditioned after doing tax and spend debates in

pre-election periods for many decades to treat policy is not as

literal but as arguments. In other words if you look back to 2015 the

Tory plan to wipe out the deficit was never going to happen and yet it

framed and large event. In that sense the Robin Hood tax is a

sensible move for Labour to make at this point because it is part of a

narrative of reconfiguring taxation to be fair. Treating it as an

argument rather than something that would happen in day one of Labour

government is sensible. In terms of building houses Theresa May said

right from the beginning when she was in Number Ten that there is a

housing deficit in this country rather than the economic deficit

George Osborne was focusing on, and this is an example of trying to get

house-building going. It seems entirely sensible, not sure how it

works with right to buy but again as framing of a 90 minute it makes

sense. I disagree with Steve on one front which is how sensible Theresa

May's policy is on the housing announcement. I think more broadly

these two announcements have something in common which is that

over the next 24 hours both will probably unravel in different ways.

Ye of little faith! The Mayor of London has already said he doesn't

agree with this, and when people see the actual impact of what looks like

a populist tax will very potentially affect people's pensions, it might

become a lot less popular. On the Tory housing plans, I think it is

difficult to imagine how they are going to implement this huge, what

looks like a huge land and property grab. Through compulsory purchase

orders, which are not a simple instrument. They say they will

change the law but really the idea of paying people below the market

value for their assets is not something I can see sitting easily

with Tory backbenchers or the Tories in the House of Lords. Tom. Both

would appear superficially to be appealing to traditional left and

traditional right bases. What is more Tory than right to buy, then

councils sell on these houses, and Labour slapping a massive tax on the

city. The Tories' plan, I would say look a bit deeper and all of the

Tory narrative from the last six years which hasn't worked well is

talking about the private sector increasing supply in the market. Now

Mrs May is talking about the role for the state after all so this is

the shift creeping in. On the Labour transaction tax, one of the most

interesting things I heard in days was from Paul Mason, former BBC

correspondent, now a cog in Easter extreme. On Newsnight he said don't

worry about whether the Labour manifesto will add up, I'm promising

it will, the bigger Tory attack line should be what on earth will be the

macroeconomic effect of taking so much tax out of the system. Very

well, we shall see. At least we have some policies to talk about.

Now, on Tuesday Labour will launch its manifesto.

But we've already got a pretty good idea of what's in it -

that's because most of its contents were leaked to the media

Labour has a variety of spending pledges including an extra

?6 billion a year for the NHS, an additional ?8 billion for social

care over the lifetime of the next parliament,

as well as a ?250 billion in infrastructure over

The party will support the renewal of the Trident submarine system,

although any Prime Minister should be extremely cautious

about its use, and the party will hold a strategic defence

and security review immediately after the election.

In terms of immigration, Labour will seek "reasonable

management of migration", but it will not make "false

Elsewhere, university tuition fees will be abolished,

and the public sector pay cap, which limits pay rises

for public sector workers to 1%, will be scrapped.

The party also aims to renationalise the railways, the Royal Mail

and the National Grid, as well as creating at least one

A senior Labour backbencher described it to the Sunday Politics

as a manifesto for a leadership who don't "give a toss

about the wider public", and several other Labour candidates

told us they thought it had been deliberately

leaked by the leadership, with one suggesting

the leak was intended to "bounce the National Executive"

And we're joined now from Salford by the Shadow Business Secretary,

Welcome to the programme. The draft manifesto proposed to renationalise

the number of industry. You will wait for the franchises to run out

rather than buy them out at the moment so can you confirm the

railways will not be wholly nationalised until 2030, after three

Labour governments, and Jeremy Corbyn will be 80? I'm not going to

comment on leaks, you will just have to be patient and wait to see what

is in our manifesto. But you have already announced you will

nationalise the railways, so tell me about it. We have discussed taking

the franchises into public ownership as they expire, however the detail

will be set out in the manifesto so I'm not prepared to go into detail

until that policy is formally laid out on Tuesday. That doesn't sound

very hopeful but let's carry on. You will also nationalise the National

Grid, it has a market capitalisation of ?40 billion, why do you want to

nationalise that? Again, I'm not going to speculate on leaks, you

will just have to be patient. But you said you will nationalise the

National Grid so tell's Y. The leaks have suggested but you will just

have to wait and see what the final manifesto states on that one. So is

it a waste of time me asking you how you will pay for something that

costs 40 billion? Be patient, just couple of days to go, but what I

would say is there is growing pressure from the public to reform

the utilities sector. The Competition and Markets Authority

stated in 2015 that bill payers were paying over till debt -- ?2 billion

in excess of what they should be paying so there is a clear need for

reform. The bills we get are from the energy companies, you are not

going to nationalise them, you are going to nationalise the

distribution company and I wondered what is the case for nationalising

the distribution company? As I said, our full plans will be set out on

Tuesday. In relation to the big six energy companies, we know in recent

years they have been overcharging customers... There's no point in

answering questions I am not asking. I am asking what is the case for

nationalising the National Grid? There is a case for reforming the

energy sector as a whole and that looks at the activities of the big

six companies and it will look at other aspects too. You will have to

be patient and wait until Tuesday. What about the Royal Mail? Again,

you will have to wait until Tuesday. Why can't you just be honest with

the British voter? We know you are going to do this and you have a duty

to explain. I'm not even arguing whether it is right or wrong. The

Royal Mail was sold off and we know it was sold under value and British

taxpayers have a reason to feel aggrieved about that. There is a

long-term strategy that would ensure the Royal Mail was classified as a

key piece of infrastructure but the details of that will be set out in

our manifesto because we want to ensure businesses and households

ensure the best quality of service when it comes to their postal

providers. You plan to borrow an extra 25 billion per year, John

McDonnell has already announced this, on public investment, on top

of the around 50 billion already being planned for investment. You

will borrow it all so that means, if you can confirm, that many years

after the crash by 2021, Labour government would still be borrowing

75 billion a year. Is that correct? We have set out ?250 billion of

capital investment, and ?250 billion for a national investment bank. Our

financial and fiscal rules dictate we will leave the Government in a

state of less debt than we found it at the start of the parliament so we

won't increase the national debt at the end of our Parliamentary term.

How can you do that if by 2021 you will still be borrowing around 75

billion a year, which is more than we borrow at the moment? The 500

billion figure is set out over a period of ten years, it's a figure

that has been suggested by Peter Helm from Oxford University as a

figure that is necessary to bring us in line with other industrial

competitors. Similar figures have been suggested by groups such as the

CBI. By the way I have not included all 500 billion, just the 250

billion on public spending, not the extra money. You talk about the

fiscal rules. The draft manifesto said you will leave debt as a

proportion of trend GDP law at the end of each parliament, you have

just said a version of that. What is trend GDP? In clear terms we will

ensure the debt we acquire will be reduced by the end of the

parliament. We won't leave the Government finances in a worse state

than we found them. OK, but what is trend GDP? Our rule is we will

ensure public sector net debt is less than we found it when we came

to power in Government on June the 8th. But that is not what your draft

manifesto says. I'm not going to comment on leaks, you are just going

to have to wait until Tuesday to look at the fine detail and perhaps

we will have another chat then. You have published your plans for

corporation tax and you will increase it by a third and your

predictions assumed that will get an extra 20 billion a year by the end

of the parliament. But that assumes the companies don't change their

behaviour, that they move money around, they leave the country or

they generate smaller profits. Is that realistic? You are right to

make that point and you will see when we set out our policies and

costings in the manifesto that we haven't spent all of the tax take.

We have allowed for different differentials and potential changes

in market activity because that would be approved and direction to

take. But corporation tax is allowed to be cut in France and the United

States, it's only 12.5% in Dublin. Many companies based in Britain are

already wondering whether they should relocate because of Brexit,

if you increase this tax by a third couldn't that clinch it for a number

of them? No, we will still be one of the lowest corporation tax rate in

the G7. Let's look at what's important for business. Cutting

corporation tax in itself doesn't improve productivity, or business

investment and there's no suggestion cutting corporation tax in recent

years has achieved that. Businesses need an investment in tools in

things they need to thrive and prosper, they also need to reduce

the burden at the lower end of the tax scale, before we get to the

Prophet stage. One key example is business rates. We have made the

proposal to government to in -- exclude machinery so businesses can

invest and grow operations in the future but the Government refused.

Corporation tax has been cut since 2010. When it was 28% it brought in

?43 billion a year. Now it is down to 20%, it brought in ?55 billion a

year. By cutting it in the last year, it brought in 21% more, so

what is the problem? It might have brought in more money, but has it

increased business investment in the long term. It is not just about

cutting corporation tax, but it is on the ability of businesses to

thrive and prosper. Business investment in the UK is below are

industrial competitors. Wages are stagnating which doesn't indicate

businesses are not doing well. Let me get it right, you are arguing if

we increase business tax by a third, that will increase investment? I am

not saying that. You just did. Know I didn't, I said reducing business

tax isn't enough, you have to invest in the things businesses need to

thrive and prosper. You have also got to lessen the burden on

business. You have announced a financial transaction tax. Your own

labour Mayor of London said he has vowed to fight it. He said I do not

want a unilateral tax on business in our city, so why are you proceeding

with it? This isn't a new initiative, there is a growing

global pressure to make sure we have fairness in the financial sector.

Ordinary British people are paying for our banking crisis they didn't

cause. Another important point, stamp duty reserve tax was brought

in in the 1600 and there have been little reforms. The sector has

changed and we have do provide changes to the system for that

change. High-frequency trading where we have a state of affairs where a

lot of shares are traded on computers within milliseconds. We

need a tax system that keeps up with that. What happens if they move the

computers to another country? Emily Thornaby said this morning, other

countries had already introduced a financial transaction tax, what

other countries have done that? There are ten countries looking at

introducing a transaction tax. Which ones have done it so far? They will

be later announcing a final package, going through the finer detail at

the moment. But the European Commission tried to get this done in

2011 and it still hasn't happened in any of these countries. But you are

going to go ahead unilaterally and risk these businesses, which

generate a lot of money, moving to other jurisdictions. There is not a

significant risk of that happening. The stamp duty reserve tax is levied

at either where the person or company is domiciled or where the

instrument is issued rather than worth the transaction takes place.

This tax in itself is not enough to make people leave this country in

terms of financial services because there is more to keep these

businesses here in terms of the investment we are making, the

economy that Labour will build, in terms of productivity improvement we

will see. Thank you very much, Rebecca Long-Bailey.

And listening to that was the Home Office Minister, Brandon Lewis.

Over the years, you have got corporation tax by 20%, it is lower

than international standards, so why are so many global companies who

make money out of Great Britain, still not paying 20%? It is one of

the problems with the point Labour were making and Rebecca could not

answer, these companies can move around the world. One of the

important things is having a low tax economy but these businesses, it

encourages them to come at a rate they are prepared to pay. People may

say they are right, if they were paying 19, 20% incorporation tax.

But they are not. Google runs a multi-million pound corporation and

did not pay anywhere near 20%. There are companies that are trading

internationally and that is why we have to get this work done with our

partners around the world. Has there been an improvement? It is more than

they were paying before. Whether it is Google or any other company,

alongside them being here, apart from the tax they pay, it is the

people they employ. The deal was, if you cut the business tax, the

corporation tax on profits, we would get more companies coming here and

more companies paying their tax. It seems it doesn't matter how low, a

number of companies just pay a derisory amount and you haven't been

able to change that. As you outlined, the income taken from the

changing corporation tax has gone up. That is from established British

companies, not from these international companies. It is

because more companies are coming here and paying tax. That is a good

thing. There is always more to do and that is why we want to crack

down. In the last few weeks in the Finnish Parliament, Labour refused

to put to another ?8.7 billion of tax take we could have got by

cracking down further. You claim to have made great progress on cracking

down on people and companies to pay the tax they should. But the tax gap

is the difference between what HMRC takes in and what it should take in.

It has barely moved in five years, so where is the progress? He have

brought in 150 billion more where we have cracked down on those tax

schemes. The gap is still the same as it was five years ago. It's gone

from 6.8, 26.5. It has gone down. The Prime Minister and the

Chancellor said they want to continue work on to get more money

on these companies while still having a competitive rate to

encourage these companies. While big business and the wealthy continue to

prosper, the Office for Budget Responsibility tell us those on

average earnings in this country will be earning less in real terms

by 2021 than they did in 2008. How can that be fair? I don't see it

that way. I haven't seen the figures you have got. What I can say to you,

Andrew, we have made sure the minimum wage has gone up, the actual

income tax people pay has gone down. So in their pocket, real terms,

people have more money. You are the self-styled party of work. We keep

emphasising work. Under your government you can work for 13 years

and still not earn any more at the end of it, and you did at the start.

Where is the reward for effort in that? I have not seen those figures.

There are 2.8 million more people, more jobs in economy than there was.

1000 jobs every day and people are working and developing through their

careers. This is what I thought was odd in what Rebecca was saying,

investing in people is what the apprenticeship levy is about,

companies are investing their works force to take more opportunities

that there. We are talking about fairness, politicians talk about

hard-working people and we know the average earnings are no higher than

they were in 2008. We know the pay and bonuses of senior executives

have continued to grow and the Institute for Fiscal Studies has

shown 3 million of the poorest households will lose an average of

?2500 a year in the next Parliament, benefits frozen, further sanctions

kick in. 3 million of the poorest losing 2500. Under the Tories, one

law for the rich and another for the poor. It is quite wrong. First of

all, we have got to be fair to the taxpayer who is funding the welfare

and benefit system. Which is why the welfare was right. Get more people

in work and then it is important to get more people upscaling. As that

allowance rises, people have more of the money they earn in their pocket

to be able to use in the economy. People will be worse off. 2500,

among the poorest already. They will have more money in their pocket as

we increase the allowance before people pay tax. We have seen

millions of people coming out of tax altogether. The reason I ask these

questions, you and the Prime Minister go on and on about the just

about managing classes. I am talking about the just about managing and

below that. It is all talk, you haven't done anything for them. We

have made sure they have an increasing minimum wage, it has gone

up more under us than any other previous government. Their wages

will be still lower in real terms. Let me come on to this plan for

housing. We have announced a new plan to increase affordable housing,

social housing, some council housing and social housing built by the

associations. How much money is behind this? It is part of the 1.4

billion announced in the Autumn Statement. How many homes will you

get for 1.4 billion? That depends on the negotiations with local

authorities. It is local authorities, who know the area best.

I will not put a number on that. 1.4 billion, if you price the house at

100,000, which is very low, particularly for the South, back at

you 14,000 new homes. That is it. What we have seen before, how the

local government can leveraged to build thousands more homes. That is

what we want to see across the country. It is not just about the

money, for a lot of local authorities it is about the

expertise and knowledge on how to do this. That is why support from the

housing communities minister will help. What is the timescale, how

many more affordable homes will be built? I will not put a number on

it. You announced it today, so you cannot tell me how many more or what

the target is? It is a matter of working with the local authorities

who know what their local needs are, what land they have got available.

What we saw through the local elections with the Metro mayors,

they want to deliver in their areas, whether it is the West of England,

the north-east, Liverpool, Manchester and we want to work with

them. You have said variations of this for the past seven years and I

want some credibility. When you cannot tell us how much money, what

the target and timescale is, and this government, under which

affordable house building has fallen to a 24 year low. 1.2 million

families are on waiting lists for social housing to rent. That is your

record. Why should we believe a word you say? This is different to what

we have been doing over the last two years. We want to develop and have a

strong and stable economy that can sustain that 1.4 billion homes. This

is important. In 2010, we inherited the lowest level of house building,

75,000 new homes. That is about 189,000 over the last four years.

That is a big step forward after the crash, getting people back into the

industry. More first-time buyers onto the market. Final question, in

2010, 2011, your first year in government, there were 60,000

affordable homes built. May not be enough, but last day it was 30 2000.

So why should we trust anything you say about this? On housing, we have

delivered. We have delivered more social housing. Double what Labour

did in 13 years, in just five years. This is what this policy is about,

working with local authorities to deliver more homes to people in

their local areas. Thank you. Now, they have a deficit

of between 15 and 20% in the polls, but Jeremy Corbyn and those

around him insist Labour can win. If the polls are right they've got

three and half weeks to change voters' minds and persuade those

fabled undecided voters We enlisted the polling organisation

YouGov to help us find out how the performance of party leaders

will affect behaviour Leeds, a city of three quarters

of a million people, eight Parliamentary seats and home

to our very own focus group. Our panel was recruited

from a variety of backgrounds and the majority say they haven't

decided who to vote for yet. Watching behind the glass,

two experts on different sides Giles Cunningham, who headed up

political press at Downing Street under David Cameron

and Aaron Bastani, Corbin supporter, under David Cameron

and Aaron Bastani, Corbyn supporter, I think Theresa May sees herself

as a pound shop Thatcher. Milliband's policies but when it

came about who you want,

if you wake up on maybe a 2015, We found in a couple of focus

groups, people saying we'd be quite relieved,

even though some of those same people have been saying we quite

like the Labour policies. I think the fact that Corbyn's

going so hard on his values, this is a really progressive

manifesto, they live But I think that's a new challenge,

that wasn't there in 2015. Is there anyone here that

you don't recognise? After a little warm up,

the first exercise, recognising I think it's nice to have a strong

woman in politics, I do. But I've got to say,

when she comes on the news, I kind of do think,

here we go again. Tell me about Tim Farron, what

are your impressions of Tim Farron? It isn't going to do anything,

it isn't going to change anything. You'll be surprised to hear it's

actually the Greens. Strong and stable leadership

in the national interest. Yes, Team May, it's

the British equivalent of make What do we think about this one

for the many and not the few? It's not quite as bad

as strong and stable, but it will probably get

on our nerves after a while. We must seize that chance today

and every day until June the 8th. But that's not quite my

question, my question is, if you are Prime Minister,

we will leave, come hell or high water, whatever is on the table

at the end of the negotiations? If we win the election,

we'll get a good deal with Europe. Assertive and in control

and he felt comfortable But the second one, I thought

he was very hesitant. I thought he was kind of,

hovering around, skirting around and that's the second

time I've seen a similar interview with the question

being asked regarding Brexit. I don't think I'd have

any confidence with him You think you are going up

against some quite strong people, how are you going to stand

up for us? When you are in negotiations,

you need to be tough. And actually is right

to be tough sometimes, particularly when you are doing

something for the country. There's a reason for talking

about strong and stable leadership. It's about the future

of the country, it's It's just that people kind of listen

to that kind of thing and think Both on The One Show

and in the news. She attracts the public better

than what Corbyn does. She didn't answer the question

in a more articular way than Corbyn Imagine that Theresa

May is an animal. So, in your minds,

what animal is coming to mind I've done a Pekinese because I think

she's all bark and no bite. Alpaca because she's

superior looking and woolly I don't think his policies

are for the modern, real world. A mouse because they are weak

and they can be easily bullied, but also they can catch

you by surprise if you're What do you take away

from what you saw then, and what message would you send back

to the Tories now? I think what came over is people see

Theresa May as a strong politician, not everyone likes her,

but you don't need to be liked to be elected,

because ultimately it's about who do you trust with your future

and your security. I think what I also take out

of that focus group, was it was a group of floating

voters, there was no huge appetite for the Lib Dems and there was no

huge appetite for Ukip. So my messaged back to CCHQ

would be stick to the plan. I thought the response

to the manifesto was excellent. It's clear that people aren't

particularly keen on Theresa May, There are some associations with her

about strength and stability, which is exactly what the Tory party

want of course, but they are not positive and nobody thinks

that she has a vision So, what I'd say the Jeremy Corbyn,

what I'd say to the Labour Party is, they need to really emphasise

the manifesto in Jeremy Corbyn himself has to perform

out of his skin and I think he has to reemphasise those

characteristics which may be have come to the fore may be

over the last 12 months, resilience, strength and the fact

that he's come this far, why not take that final step and go

into ten Downing Street? We're joined now by the American

political consultant For the sake of this discussion,

assume the polls at the moment are broadly right, is there any hope for

Mr Corbyn in the undecided voters? Know, and this is a very serious

collection with serious consequences to who wins. Nobody cares whether

you can draw and what animal they represent, they want to know where

they stand, and I felt that was frivolous. I come to Britain to

watch elections because I learned from here. Your elections are more

substantial, more serious, more policy and less about personality

and that peace was only about personality. That's partly because

Mrs May has decided to make this a presidential election. You can see

on the posters it is all Team May. I agree with that, and in her language

she says not everyone benefits from a Conservative government, I don't

see how using anything Republicans have used in the past. In fact her

campaign is more of a centrist Democrats but it is a smart strategy

because it pushes Corbyn further to the left. Of course you said Hillary

Clinton have won. On election night the polling was so bad in America,

the exit polls that were done, the BBC told America she had won. No, I

was anchoring the programme that night, I ignored your tweet. The BBC

had the same numbers. Yes, but we did not say she had won, I can

assure you of that. Because of people like you we thought she had

but we didn't broadcast it. That was a smart approach. My point is other

than teasing you, maybe there is hope for Jeremy Corbyn. I think you

will have one of the lowest turnout in modern history and I think Labour

will fall to one of the lowest percentages, not percentage of

number of seats they have had, and this will be a matter of

soul-searching for both political parties. What you do with a sizeable

majority, and she has a responsibility to tell the British

people exactly what happens as she moves forward. He and Labour will

have to take a look at whether they still represent a significant slice

of the British population. Do you see a realignment in British

politics taking place? I see a crumbling of the left and yet there

is still a significant percentage of the British population that once

someone who is centre-left. And they like a lot of Mr Corbyn's policies.

I'm listening to Michael foot. I went to school here in the 1980s and

I feel like I'm watching the Labour Party of 35 years ago, in a

population that wants to focus on the future, not the past. Thank you.

It's just gone 11.35, you're watching the Sunday Politics.

We say goodbye to viewers in Scotland, who leave us now

Welcome to Sunday Politics here in the west, on a sunny

and breezy morning - perfect weather to be

We have guests of many political colours -

Would they stand a better chance of defeating the Conservatives?

Or is that theory just a pile of, erm, manure?

They are the Conservative Jacob Rees-Mogg, Helen Belcher

from the Lib Dems, Sarah Church from Labour.

But first, Mrs May called this election because -

And one industry that has much to gain or lose from leaving the EU

Robin Markwell is at a food fair in Bristol for us this morning.

good morning, David. They say you should never talk politics at the

dinner table, I don't know that applies to food fairs. The doors

have just opened people are starting to streaming and there are all sorts

of wares on Opera. -- on offer. Garlic mushrooms, some Thai food...

Vintage tearooms here from 1946, you can see from the patriotic bunting

that it's going back to the 1940s. My melon soup, Pam and Tony, good as

you buy. A couple of stories to tell. You work through the

Antipodean sommelier, just tell us what you do? Yellow two we we import

Australian wines and to various distributors around the country. The

drop in Stirling, how had infected your business? It is huge, in 2015,

we be looking at $32 to the pound, pre-Brexit, it was 22. At an

increasing goods to us for about 28%, that tough to get over. Macro

and yet he still back Brexit? I believe if the negotiation isn't

working, then you change the game. I would have expected various parties

to get their heads together and perhaps do something about it, but

it seems like people are polarised, which I don't think it is a good

thing. I am pretty pleased about last week's French election ready

for Mike didn't get in. Your family spoil pig, a bacon supplier, how is

Brexit affected you? We're based in Devon, so we are on using British,

outdoor reared pigs, but we do have our slicing equipment, that's

jamming equipment if we need to update that it will have an effect.

-- slicing equipment. Dunn as you voted remain, you are having second

thoughts? I am not completely certain. I think being in Europe is

stronger for Europe but as Tony said, we are we are, and we got to

get on with it. Having a strong leadership is really important.

Brexit could change about them? Tony, how are you back? I will vote

the way I always have. My background is economic 's, so I will vote for

the party that will allocate resources most efficiently. Pam and

Tony, two different flavours at this delicious election.

Jacob, food prices are up, inflation is up.

Food prices are up the value of the pound is down.

We're only seeing the beginning of the economic problems caused

I think it was a very important point about New Zealand wine. The

price may have gone up 28%, but the tariff that we play as a member of

the EU is over 30%. So, once we are out of the EU, even with the fall in

the pound, New Zealand wine can be cheaper and that is one of the

advantages are Brexit. As it happens I prefer French wine. I'm very

traditional. So it's not go to make a difference to me. New Zealand

wine, Australian wine, Chilean wine, all of those will be cheaper because

we weren't happy have EU tax. That a bit of a let them eat cake argument,

isn't it? No, it applies to other foodstuffs as well. We can get

cheaper beef from the United States and from Australia and from

Argentina. The advantages of leaving come from the reduction in terrorist

-- tariffs which reduce basic rates on staples. Less need for food

banks? Food banks are good way of providing temporary support people

in financial difficulties. Certainly nothing to do with the European

Union. I would like to pursue that, and ensure we will before the

election but will move on. Sarah, can you simply spell out

what Labour's position on Brexit is? What I would say is that we have to

have a construction approach, not a convert of approach. I do think

saying that we will crash out regardless of the deal. You had the

gentleman on the peace they are saying that all the options have to

remain on the table and it may be at the Abbey temporary arrangement

where we are able to make sure that we don't crash out of the single

market and the customs union before sorting out all of our trade deals.

Coming from Swindon, where we have 10,000 jobs reliant on access to the

single market in some way, whether it is to do with access to research

grants to enter contests in an economy it's important to look at

what we need to achieve and not, as I said,... So what would be a good

deal? A good deal would be one in which we have some access to the

single market. Immigration is a topic that we have doing gave John,

we can shy away from it. The feedback we get very clearly from

across the country is that immigration has to match demand. You

want access to the single market but not the strings that come with it,

which is normally immigration? I'm which is normally immigration? I'm

not saying that we have full access and full freedom of movement, I want

guarantees for EU nationals who already live your and what is clear

do with jobs in the economy. Certain do with jobs in the economy. Certain

sectors of the economy need to bring workers in from outside and they are

not putting British workers to one side to do that, then that is fine.

At the moment we have a crisis in At the moment we have a crisis in

recruiting nurses and going to India to do it. What do you make of Ukip?

Your dentist to these indicators. -- you are going to see the indicators.

Until the ink is dry we again to get speculation and instability. How do

you know that people voted for a hard Brexit? It's just about leaving

be like Norway, countless times. You be like Norway, countless times. You

area where you pay in bed then you area where you pay in bed then you

have to accept free movement? News Letter I'm of the mindset that you

need to get out of the isolationist, protectionism of the European Union.

I came to agree with Jacob around that. The tariffs that are imposed

by that if we should no longer be part of. But enough sovereignty over

our borders and our laws, that would I know a lot of people voted for in

my neck and the having overwhelming percentage of people that voted for

that. Alan, this sounds like paradise with a limp Dems? What's

not to like. Well you're not also in products after exporting stuff and

we explored a lot of red meat. So exporting beef to the EU is around

70%. So suddenly a huge chunk of our export market becomes a lot harder.

We're seeing me in fact of the We're seeing me in fact of the

falling pound, increased food prices here. That isn't to be a short-term

impact it may end up being a long impact but exporting becomes a lot

harder for us if we are going to export to the European Union. That

is a major market for us. What is the reaction to this when Tim Farron

goes around in an area which rated generally for Brexit? I think

whatever people voted for, leave remain, people are worried about

what the deal actually is. I think as Liberal democrats we have taken a

clear position on that deal. At the moment the election is the

Conservatives saying, trust us we can sort it out. But it is vague.

There is no detail. Let's bring this back to you too, Jacob. If do you

think that by going through the selection, if there were a large

Conservative majority as the newspapers are saying, would mean a

Brexiteers, high Brexiteers like you and Liam Fox and David Davis and all

the rest of them would be marginalised? And actually, Mrs May

could do the deal that she wants to do which could be quite a soft one?

I agree with Daniel that the hard and soft Brexit is Miss phraseology.

-- Miss phraseology. We are leaving the European Union, it's neither

hard soft, we're leaving. In terms of the consequences for people like

me who campaign for Brexit I don't think that analogy applies. The

overwhelming majority of members of Parliament were in favour of

remaining within the European Union. There were about 150 year putt MPs

who are in favour of leaving. Had she wanted to moralising marginalise

us she would have done so anew last Parliament. We weren't going to get

the SNP to support us, we weren't get the Lib Dems to supporters or

the label to party -- Labour Party. They only needed ten of them to

defeat the government to defeat the dog putt so had Mrs May wanted some

terrible fudge, she would have advised to keep the last Parliament.

If she is successful, what sort of breakfast will she get? She has said

it sat on a Brexit. Enough of this coalition of chaos because we must

move on. Thursday marked the closing

date for prospective MPs The Tories, Lib Dems and Labour

are contesting all 31 So, were deals done behind closed

doors for political favours? Cheltenham in all her

regency glory... Will you tell me who you

going to vote for in This seat was taken

by the Tories in 2015. But opposition parties are hoping

for a blossoming of support. The Greens, Labour and Lib Dems

helped each other out, we understand, in the local

elections - although, The Lib Dems, though, could now see

some support go to the Greens. They're standing for

the general election Despite, they say, making overtures

to Labour and the Lib Dems. Perhaps the Lib Dems were burnt

by their last deal - the coalition. It's really important, I think,

that people of all parties work together and don't live

in their tribes. I really enjoyed, during

the referendum last year, sharing a battlebus with Sadiq Khan,

Ruth Davidson, Caroline Lucas, and it's great that politicians

exist outside their tribes OK, but he says his party's

job is to win seats. What do you think about the fact

Greens are standing in Cheltenham, Well, I just hope it doesn't,

but it is their right, isn't it? Because the essence of democracy

is that you have a choice and it's Cheltenham is the only

seat in Gloucestershire where Ukip is not standing,

and that could help the Tories here. It's a similar story

in Bristol in Somerset. Ukip is only fighting a handful

of seats and are clear, in some cases, that this

is to help the Tories. I actually believe that we should

have politics where people work together and not pick

at each other all the time. I do agree with him, because that is

a perversion of democracy. You're perverting the

course of democracy. If you do those deals,

and stand down? I'm afraid so, but I did say

I would do a deal with the Tories. We wont stand in Cheltenham

if they don't stand Deal or no deal, the

candidates are now set. So, Daniel, why are Ukip only

standing in fewer than half Well, we don't have the funding

capacity that some of the parties have. When not funded by investment

bankers are trade unions are things like this. To the centre some of the

other parties. You could afford a couple of quid for a candidate or

two? Look at the political spectrum and you have the Goliath that is the

Tory party and we are a small party Tory party and we are a small party

and we rely on the contributions of come people coming up to us on the

streets making donations. Well, you got a little donation from Peter

Hargreaves, he contributed millions to the Brexit campaign. Going back

to the point about why we are filming candidates where we are

fielding candidates, there are no deals being done, we are not in the

business of making deals. We tried to fight where we think we can win.

With limited resources, you have to be tactical about where you are

going to put your eggs in the basket? These are areas where we had

tremendous amounts of Lea support and that's where we are campaigning.

Jacob, do you think it's right that Ukip stand aside

there wasn't the need for one there wasn't the need for one

because Mrs May has united what you might call the broad Tory family. In

my own area, North Somerset, a lot of people who backed Ukip are

returning to the Conservative Party. returning to the Conservative Party.

Brexit has been voted through and their main political aim has been

achieved. That is a really difficult problem for Ukip as a party. Palin?

Helen? The Tories have become blue-chip. There are a bunch of

people who I would have called natural Tories were very

uncomfortable about the way that the uncomfortable about the way that the

party is going. They are now looking for other options. Are they looking

to the Greens would ever to try and get this Progressive Alliance. My

problem with the progressive alliances it paints politics into a

conservative and anti-Conservative position. It's much more, kidnapped.

-- it's much more, located the mat. If it's much more, located them

that. Sarah? I do agree that it's a that. Sarah? I do agree that it's a

shame people end up having to make deals because our voting system only

allows one of two people to win. The Labour Party is not making deals. We

have got a very strong set of policies that we want people to have

the choice to vote on. When I am talking to people there is, I'm

sorry to have to say this, very little relevance for Ukip now,

because people are voting Conservative. They want to see a

high-pressure pick-up Ukip has become a wing of the -- they want a

hard Brexit because Ukip has become a wing of the Tory party. The sense

that people are out to punish Labour? No, I don't think people are

right to punish Labour in anyway. I think people are looking -- out to

punish Labour. Did you mention Mr Corbyn much on the doorsteps your

ex-army aren't you? And your husband is as well right? Mr Corbyn said

that Britain has an 40 just wasn't 1945, do you agree that? I think

there a debate to be had about that. The just War theory is about why

politicians and us to war not why we are there? Mr Corbyn was the only

man to spend any time at the Cenotaph talking directions

afterwards rather than going in for dinner. Mr Corbyn at his views, he

and I would have a good to be debate about just war theory. You can see

why people in the arms forces might think that he might not get a lot of

support? I think, from my perspective, I have no issue with

it. The Labour Party has a very strong history of supporting events.

The biggest damage done to defence in the last 20 years was at the

hands of the Tory led coalition, and having to administer that, the dent

in morale and hollowing out of capability has not been forgotten.

The strategic defence Security review... Daniel, people are saying

on the streets, what is the point of Ukip? I would say to those people

that the deal has not been done, it is not finished, the ink is not

drive. We are the only party that is 100% passionate for getting out of

the EU. We put the pressure onto the Tories to bring us the rest random,

that pressure is not going away. You used to a conservative didn't you?

Yes I did. Why didn't you go back? Why didn't because I see everyday

people in Gloucester and around the country that Ukip is a party is a

party for working people while the parties are not Conservatives not

doing better? Given that we had a decade of austerity. We went up

about six on our percent in local elections last week, -- 6.5%. In my

tat we were absolutely leather, we lost two we gained two. -- in my

patch we were absolutely level. We lost two we gained two. What we are

saying is that the polls are moving but I think that is masking tactical

voting. If Lib Dem voters are voting Labour to get the Tories out, well,

there are more label sheets and Lib Dem seats. Very quickly last

question to Jacob. What is the most negative thing you're hearing about

the Conservatives? It is extremely positive. Mrs May... I'm not getting

a negative response on the doorstep NHS social care education?

Inevitably there are people who don't like the Conservatives and

won't vote from me and by the same degree Mrs May, and I sometimes get

a fruity response on the doorstep which is part of political life. But

mostly it is very positive. The one thing is that Mrs May is too

popular. Thank you, that is enough freaky stuff from Jacob.

Tories are saying. It is a very emotive subject and we have run out

of time. On Thursday nominations closed

in the 650 parliamentary seats across the country,

so now we know exactly who's We've been analysing the parties'

candidates to find out what they might tell us

about the make-up of the House Well, we know Theresa May is

committed to delivering Brexit and analysis of Conservative

candidates has shown that in their top 100 target seats,

37 candidates supported leave during last year's referendum

campaign and 20 supported remain; 43

have not made public In the last parliament,

the vast majority of Labour MPs were hostile to Jeremy Corbyn so how

supportive are Labour Well, of 50 of Labour's

top 100 target seats 17 candidates have expressed

support for Mr Corbyn. 20 candidates supported Owen Smith

in last year's leadership contest or have expressed

anti-Corbyn sentiment, and If they won those,

the Labour benches would be marginally more sympathetic

to Mr Corbyn than they are now. What do the figures tell us

about where the other Well, the Lib Dems have decided not

to stand against the Greens in Brighton Pavilion,

and are fielding 629 candidates this year -

that's two fewer than 2015. The number of Ukip candidates has

fallen dramatically. They are standing in 247 fewer

constituencies than 2015, throwing their support behind

solidly pro-Brexit Tories in some areas such as Lewes

and Norfolk North. The Greens are fielding

103 fewer candidates than at the last election,

standing down to help other progressive candidates

in some places. The most liking statistic is the

demise in Ukip candidates, is this their swansong? And I think so. It

is remarkable how few Ukip candidates are standing. It is hard

to see they will suddenly revive in the next couple of years. I think

this is probably the end. Frank Luntz mentioned the fragmentation of

the left was a feature of this election, but also there is the

consolidation of the right, and if you take the things together that

could explain why the polls are where they are. Absolutely, that's

precisely what happened at the start of the 1980s, the right was

incredibly united and that's when we started talking about majorities of

over 100 or so. No matter what the size of Theresa May's majority, it

will be the total collapse of Ukip, but not just because we are now

leaving the EU and that was their only reason for being, but a whole

lot of people voted for Ukip because they felt the Tories were no longer

listening. Theresa May has given the impression that she is listening,

and that is the biggest possible thing that could happen to the Tory

vote. Fragmentation of the left, consolidation of the right? It's one

of the lessons that is never learnt, it happened in the 1980s, it doesn't

take much for the whole thing to fracture so now you have on the

centre-left the SNP, the Labour Party, the Greens, the Liberal

Democrats all competing for the same votes and when you have, fleetingly

perhaps, large numbers coalescing on the right in one party, there is

only going to be one outcome. It happens regularly. It doesn't mean

the Tories haven't got their own fragility. Two years ago, David

Cameron and George Osborne the dominant figures, neither are in

Parliament now which is a symptom of the fragility this election is

disguising. Mrs May's position in a way reminds me of Mrs Thatcher in

the 1980s, I won't be outflanked on the right, Nicolas Sarkozy in

France, I won't be outflanked on the right, so the National Front didn't

get through either timed he ran to the second round on like this time,

and now Mrs May on Brexit won't be outflanked Iver and as a result has

seen off right flank. And also she is looking to the left as well with

some of the state interventions. What was interesting about the

analysis you showed a few minutes ago was the number of Tory

candidates who have apparently not declared which way they voted in the

referendum, and you would have thought if this election was all

about Brexit, as some would claim, that would become an unsustainable

position, and actually more it's about leadership. But the point that

I'm now hearing from a number of Labour candidates that they are

seeing Tory leaflets that don't even have the Tory candidate's name on

them, it is just about Theresa May. I am glad they are keeping to the

law because by law they have to put it on. It has been harder for some

of the smaller parties too because of the speed of the election being

called. We have the manifesto is coming out this week. I think Labour

Forshaw on Tuesday, we are not yet sure when the Tories will bring

bears out. I suggest one thing, it will at least for people like me

bring an end to the question you will have to wait for the manifesto.

And Rebecca Long baby will never have that excuse again, isn't it

wonderful! She is not the only one. When you are trying to take the

north and Midlands from Labour, I would go to one or the other. For

me, I can barely hold back my excitement over the Tory manifesto.

This will be, I think, the most important day for the British

government for the next five years. That wasn't irony there? You

actually meant that? I'm not even being cynical at all on Sunday

Politics! This is a huge day and it's because I think we will see...

I don't think Mrs May will play it safe and I don't think we will get

the broadbrush stuff that she might be advised to do. I think she will

lay out precisely what you want to do over the next five years and take

some big risks. Then finally after a year of this guessing and

theorising, we will finally work out what Mrs May is all about. She will

say she doesn't want the next parliament to be all about Brexit,

though she knows that's the next important thing she has to deliver

in some way, so she gets a mandate for that if the polls are right but

she does have very different ideas from

Mr Cameron about how to run a country. She will I assume one to

mandate for what these different ideas are. Otherwise there is no

point in holding an early election. You will get a majority, but if you

get a mandate to carry on implementing the Cameron and Osborne

manifesto it would be utterly pointless. I agree, it is the

pivotal event of the election and it will be interesting to see the

degree to which she expands on the line which interests me about its

time to look at the good that government can do. Because in a way

this moves the debate on in UK politics from, from 97 the Blair

Brown governments were insecure about arguing about the role of

government. Cameron Osborne government similarly so, so here you

have a Labour Party talking about the role of government and the

state, and Tory leader apparently doing so was well. I think that will

be really interesting to see whether it is fleshed out in any significant

way. And it is not a natural Tory message. Harold Macmillan talked

about the role of the state, Ted Heath Mark two was pretty big on the

state, the industrial policy and so on, and even if it is not thought to

be that Tory, does she get away with it because she deliver such a big

victory if that's what she does deliver? Just inject a little note

of scepticism, I wonder how much of this is authentically Theresa May. I

was interested to and talk to someone who used to sit in cabinet

meetings during which Theresa May never expressed an opinion on

anything outside the Home Office briefs. Other ministers were roving

all over their colleagues' briefs. So where are the ideas coming from?

I think we can point to Nick Timothy. One of her closest advisers

in Downing Street. It will be interesting to see how that evolves.

On Thursday I think we will all be talking about something called

Urdington Toryism. Urdington is the suburb of Birmingham where Nick

Timothy comes from, who is very much Theresa May's policy brain and

leading inspiration. Urdington Toryism is about connecting the

party with traditional working class voters, and their belief to do that

is not just taking away government out of their lives but showing them

that government can actually help their lives. It can be a force for

good to rebuild the trust. A lot of what Mrs May talks about is all...

It is talk and then a lot of it suddenly goes by the wayside. What

happened to worker directors on the boards. It is designed to appeal to

that constituency and then nothing happens. She had an excuse before in

the sense that it wasn't in the 2015 manifesto and she had a small

majority so therefore she arguably had to water down some of the stuff

for example in her Tory conference speech, which had a lot of this

active government material in it. If she puts it in the manifesto, it is

a sign she plans to do it and will have no excuse if she then gets

nervous afterwards because it will be in there. If it wasn't for

Brexit, this great overwhelming issue, I think this election will be

seen as quite a significant development in terms of an argument

around the role of government, much-needed. But Brexit

unfortunately overshadows it all. As much as we like our arguments over

the role of government we will hear strong and stable, stable and strong

ad nauseam, aren't we? Absolutely, and we heard the same old lines from

the Labour Party as well so they are all at it. It will be a fascinating

week, stop talking it down! Thanks to our panel.

The Daily Politics will be back on BBC Two at noon

I'll be back here at the same time on BBC One next Sunday.

Remember - if it's Sunday, it's the Sunday Politics.

When it came to my TV habits, I'd watch anything...

But now I can sign in online and get more of what I love.

I'm kept up to date with the shows I love

and I get suggestions on subjects I'll like.

A new personalised BBC is on its way.

To tailor the benefits to you, sign in and introduce yourself.